3 ms·

This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If you ask a user if they're willing to share

This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. In fact it's sufficiently reasonable that I believe GDPR allows this to be opt-out, something I broadly agree with. I do think opt-outs should be available, I do think there should be configuration available for those who do not wish to share anything, but if the laws are being met, in the right spirit, then I would hope it would provide little actual benefit.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thaumasiotes 2y ago
That analogy doesn't seem like a match. If you ask a user if they're willing to share every action they ever take "only to improve the reliability of the software", a lot of them are going to say "wait, why would you even need that?" If I'm letting you scrape crash dumps and my browser happens to crash in the request where I send my credit card information to xhamster, that's one thing. Odds are that's never happened to anyone. It's another thing for you to guarantee that you're planning to record that information.
throwaway743 2y ago
> If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. You do realize the majority of people are completely oblivious as to why privacy matters as it relates to their data collection. It's not that they're willing to do anything. It's that they're passive/apathetic when faced with vague prompts telling them about a matter they don't have insight on, after being bombarded by terms of service agreements, cookie pop ups, etc for years and years. > This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If they were aware of privacy implications / exactly what's being collected on them and how that data is being used, then it's safe to say that they'd be the majority. Can't blame them for not taking the time to read into the matter either, as most outside of tech are wrapped up with a million other hostilities in their daily lives. Defend it all you want, but it's just one more unethical thing screwing people over.
BrenBarn 2y ago
> assuming good faith all round But why would anyone assume that? I think the position of many privacy advocates is that we're long past the point where it's reasonable to assume Google is acting in good faith in the best interests of its users. (Again, to be fair, this is true of more companies than just Google.)
- komali2 2y ago
  Assuming good faith from a corporation is absurd. Corporations measure success by one metric and one metric alone: shareholder value. Under our current system, a corporation that doesn't increase shareholder value is considered a bad company. Such a company is punished. If Google can increase shareholder value by violating user privacy, and the consequences of getting caught won't reduce shareholder value too much, it's a bad company if it doesn't violate user privacy. Of course there are mechanisms that slow this down, like laws and employees trying to follow laws, employee ethics, old guard culture, etc, but all will be defeated one by one for shareholder value.
pseudalopex 2y ago
You know most of the data Google collect are not crash reports. Most and all are not the same. And you would get most of the data you wanted if you asked according to you. In fact your opinion is not a fact. The right spirit is informed consent.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thaumasiotes 2y ago

That analogy doesn't seem like a match. If you ask a user if they're willing to share every action they ever take "only to improve the reliability of the software", a lot of them are going to say "wait, why would you even need that?" If I'm letting you scrape crash dumps and my browser happens to crash in the request where I send my credit card information to xhamster, that's one thing. Odds are that's never happened to anyone. It's another thing for you to guarantee that you're planning to record that information.

throwaway743 2y ago

> If you ask a user if they're willing to share crash reports only to improve the reliability of the software, I'd bet most people would be ok with this. You do realize the majority of people are completely oblivious as to why privacy matters as it relates to their data collection. It's not that they're willing to do anything. It's that they're passive/apathetic when faced with vague prompts telling them about a matter they don't have insight on, after being bombarded by terms of service agreements, cookie pop ups, etc for years and years. > This is a fair position to take, but assuming good faith all round, one that I think will typically be a minority. If they were aware of privacy implications / exactly what's being collected on them and how that data is being used, then it's safe to say that they'd be the majority. Can't blame them for not taking the time to read into the matter either, as most outside of tech are wrapped up with a million other hostilities in their daily lives. Defend it all you want, but it's just one more unethical thing screwing people over.

BrenBarn 2y ago

> assuming good faith all round But why would anyone assume that? I think the position of many privacy advocates is that we're long past the point where it's reasonable to assume Google is acting in good faith in the best interests of its users. (Again, to be fair, this is true of more companies than just Google.)

komali2 2y ago
Assuming good faith from a corporation is absurd. Corporations measure success by one metric and one metric alone: shareholder value. Under our current system, a corporation that doesn't increase shareholder value is considered a bad company. Such a company is punished. If Google can increase shareholder value by violating user privacy, and the consequences of getting caught won't reduce shareholder value too much, it's a bad company if it doesn't violate user privacy. Of course there are mechanisms that slow this down, like laws and employees trying to follow laws, employee ethics, old guard culture, etc, but all will be defeated one by one for shareholder value.

pseudalopex 2y ago

You know most of the data Google collect are not crash reports. Most and all are not the same. And you would get most of the data you wanted if you asked according to you. In fact your opinion is not a fact. The right spirit is informed consent.